CTNF 18/140,032 CTNF 86167 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-2, 5-7, 9-10, 13-14, 17-18, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lumag in view of Beckhausen (9,988,770) and Davis (10,132,048) . Regarding claim 1, Lumag teaches a plate compactor (page 14) comprising :a base (21); a vibration mechanism (26) coupled to the base; a compacting plate (27) coupled to the base and configured to be vibrated in a vertical direction by the vibration mechanism, the compacting plate configured to compact a work surface; and a non-stick material (diesel) on a surface of the compacting plate that engages the work surface during compacting, the non-stick material configured to prevent a buildup of material on the compacting plate (Page 10, 4-3). Lumag fails to teach the vibration mechanism is an electric motor with an eccentric shaft. Beckhusen teaches a plate compactor that can have a hydraulic or electric vibratory motor (52) with an eccentric shaft. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute an electric motor for the motor of Lumag as taught by Beckhusen as it is obvious to substitute one known element for another known element to yield predictable results. Davis teaches an asphalt working tool and that it is known to use a non-stick coating on the tool instead of coating the tool with diesel fuel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat the vibrating compactor plate of Lumag with a non-stick coating as taught by Davis to prevent asphalt from sticking to the plate without it being a danger to the worker or a hazard to the environment (Column 2, Lines 15-25). Regarding claim 2, Lumag as modified by Beckhusen and Davis teaches the non-stick coating is a ceramic coating (Column 5, Lines 60-67). Regarding claim 5, Lumag as modified by Beckhusen and Davis teaches the surface that engages the work surface during compacting is a bottom surface configured to be in facing relationship with the work surface, wherein the compacting plate further includes a forward-facing surface and a rearward-facing surface (Page 11, 27), and wherein the non-stick coating is applied to the bottom surface (Page 10, 4-3). . Regarding claim 6, Lumag as modified by Beckhusen and Davis teaches the non-stick coating is applied to the forward- facing surface. Lumag teaches the whole bottom surface is coated with diesel. In combination with Davis, the non-stick coating would be applied to the bottom, forward and rearward facing surface. Regarding claim 7, Lumag as modified by Beckhusen and Davis teaches the non-stick coating includes polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (Davis; Column 6, Lines 25-27). Regarding claim 9, Lumag teaches a plate compactor comprising (page 11): a base (21); a handle (2) coupled to the base, the handle configured to be engaged by an operator to guide the plate compactor along a work surface; a vibration mechanism (26) coupled to the base, the vibration mechanism including a motor (1) and an eccentric shaft (26-6) coupled to the motor to be driven by the motor; a compacting plate (27) coupled to the base, the compacting plate configured to be vibrated in a vertical direction by rotation of the eccentric shaft; and a material disposed on a portion of the compacting plate that engages the work surface (Page 10, 4-3). Beckhusen teaches a plate compactor that can have a hydraulic or electric vibratory motor (52) with an eccentric shaft. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute an electric motor for the motor of Lumag as taught by Beckhusen as it is obvious to substitute one known element for another known element to yield predictable results. Davis teaches an asphalt working tool and that it is known to use a non-stick coating on the tool instead of coating the tool with diesel fuel (Column 2, Lines 15-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat the vibrating compactor plate of Lumag with a ceramic coating as taught by Davis to prevent asphalt from sticking to the plate without it being a danger to the worker or a hazard to the environment (Column 2, Lines 15-25). Regarding claim 10, Lumag as modified by Beckhusen and Davis teaches the ceramic coating is a non-stick coating (Column 5, Lines 65-67). Regarding claim 13, Lumag as modified by Beckhusen and Davis teaches the compacting plate includes a bottom surface configured to be in facing relationship with the work surface, wherein the compacting plate further includes a forward-facing surface and a rearward-facing surface (Page 11, 27), and wherein the ceramic coating is applied to the bottom surface (Page 10, 4-3). Regarding claim 14, Lumag as modified by Beckhusen and Davis teaches the non-stick coating is applied to the forward- facing surface. Lumag teaches the whole bottom surface is coated with diesel. In combination with Davis, the non-stick coating would be applied to the bottom, forward and rearward facing surface. Regarding claim 17, Lumag teaches a compacting plate (27) for a type of walk-behind construction equipment, the compacting plate comprising: a bottom surface configured to be in facing relationship with a work surface to be compacted; a forward-facing surface coupled to the bottom surface; a rearward-facing surface coupled to the bottom surface opposite the forward-facing surface (Page 14); and a non-stick material applied to the bottom surface (Page 10, 4-3). Davis teaches an asphalt working tool and that it is known to use a non-stick coating on the tool instead of coating the tool with diesel fuel (Column 2, Lines 15-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat the vibrating compactor plate of Lumag with a ceramic coating as taught by Davis to prevent asphalt from sticking to the plate without it being a danger to the worker or a hazard to the environment (Column 2, Lines 15-25). Lumag teaches the bottom face is coated with diesel. The bottom face would include the forward and rearward bottom faces as well since they are also facing downward and in contact with the asphalt. However, since Lumag is vague in its’ teaching and given the teachings of Davis, the examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat the entire bottom surface with the non-stick coating since the entire bottom surface including the rearward and forward facing bottom surfaces would be in contact with the asphalt to prevent the asphalt from sticking to any portion of the bottom surface and to prevent caked on asphalt that makes the tool difficult to clean. Davis makes it clear that the purpose of the nonstick coating is to prevent asphalt from building up on the tool and making it difficult to clean, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would put the coating any place on the plate of Lumag that would come in contact with asphalt, which includes the front and rear surfaces. Regarding claim 18, Lumag as modified by Beckhusen and Davis teaches the compacting plate is formed as a unitary plate (See Page 14). Regarding claim 20, Lumag as modified by Beckhusen and Davis teaches the non-stick coating is a ceramic coating (Column 5, Lines 65-67). Regarding claim 21, Lumag as modified by Beckhusen and Davis teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach the electric motor is a DC brushless electric motor. The examiner takes official notice that DC brushless motors are old and well known in the art and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the motor of Lumag a DC brushless electric motor as it is obvious to substitute one known element for another known element to yield predictable results . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3, 4, 8, 11-12, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lumag in view of Beckhusen (9,988,770) and Davis (10,132,048) and in further view of Duraceram . Regarding claim 3, Lumag as modified by Beckhusen and Davis teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the specific properties of the non-stick coating. Duraceram teaches a nonstick coating with a pencil hardness of between 5H and 9H (Page 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the non-stick coating of Davis on the plate compactor of Lumag with a pencil hardness of between 5H and 9H as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and further since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233. Regarding claim 4, Lumag as modified by Beckhusen and Davis teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the specific properties of the non-stick coating. Duraceram teaches a nonstick coating with a pencil hardness of between 8H and 9H (Page 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the non-stick coating of Davis on the plate compactor of Lumag with a pencil hardness of between 8H and 9H as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and further since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233. Regarding claim 8, Lumag as modified by Beckhusen and Davis teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the specific properties of the non-stick coating. Duraceram teaches a nonstick coating wherein the non-stick coating has a temperature resistance rated for at least 400 degrees Fahrenheit for four hours (page 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the non-stick coating of Davis on the plate compactor of Lumag a temperature resistance rated for at least 400 degrees Fahrenheit for four hours as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and further since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233. Regarding claim 11, Lumag as modified by Beckhusen and Davis teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the specific properties of the non-stick coating. Duraceram teaches a nonstick coating wherein the ceramic coating has a temperature resistance rated for at least 400 degrees Fahrenheit for four hours (page 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the non-stick coating of Davis on the plate compactor of Lumag a temperature resistance rated for at least 400 degrees Fahrenheit for four hours as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and further since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233. Regarding claim 12, Lumag as modified by Beckhusen and Davis teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the specific properties of the non-stick coating. Duraceram teaches a nonstick coating wherein the ceramic coating has a temperature resistance rated for at least 4750 degrees Fahrenheit for four hours (page 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the non-stick coating of Davis on the plate compactor of Lumag a temperature resistance rated for at least 750 degrees Fahrenheit for four hours as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and further since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233. Regarding claim 15, Lumag as modified by Beckhusen and Davis teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the specific properties of the non-stick coating. Duraceram teaches a nonstick coating with a pencil hardness of between 5H and 9H (Page 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the non-stick coating of Davis on the plate compactor of Lumag with a pencil hardness of between 5H and 9H as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and further since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233. Regarding claim 16, Lumag as modified by Beckhusen and Davis teaches the invention as described above but fails to teach the specific properties of the non-stick coating. Duraceram teaches a nonstick coating with a pencil hardness of between 8H and 9H (Page 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the non-stick coating of Davis on the plate compactor of Lumag with a pencil hardness of between 8H and 9H as it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and further since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argued that Lumag does not teach an electric motor. The examiner agrees, however, the Beckhusen reference does teach an electric motor in a plate compactor. 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 03/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 19, applicant argues that the resulting combination of Lumag and Davis would result in the bottom, front and rearward surfaces of the plate being coated in a non-stick coating. The examiner disagrees. Although Lumag is vague in its’ teaching, Lumag does teach coating a bottom surface of the plate with diesel. Davis teaches providing a nonstick coating on the entirety of the tool to prevent asphalt from sticking to it and for ease of cleanup. When considering the teachings of Davis, one of ordinary skill in the art would apply the non stick coating on the plate of Lumag on any surface that would be in contact with the asphalt, which would include the forward and rearward bottom surfaces . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL ANNE RISIC whose telephone number is (571)270-7819. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5, M-Th. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chris Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ABIGAIL A RISIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671 May 29, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/140,032 Page 2 Art Unit: 3671 Application/Control Number: 18/140,032 Page 3 Art Unit: 3671 Application/Control Number: 18/140,032 Page 4 Art Unit: 3671 Application/Control Number: 18/140,032 Page 5 Art Unit: 3671 Application/Control Number: 18/140,032 Page 6 Art Unit: 3671 Application/Control Number: 18/140,032 Page 7 Art Unit: 3671 Application/Control Number: 18/140,032 Page 8 Art Unit: 3671 Application/Control Number: 18/140,032 Page 9 Art Unit: 3671
Prosecution Insights